New York, New York--The United Nations Security Council Saturday unanimously approved a resolution regarding the humanitarian crisis in Syria. Resolution 2139 demanded, among other things, "that all parties, in particular the Syrian authorities, promptly allow rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access for UN humanitarian agencies and their implementing partners, including across conflict lines and across borders in order to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches people in need through the most direct routes."
The resolution, which was co-sponsored by Jordan, Australia and Luxemburg, urged all parties involved in the Syrian conflict to lift sieges of populated areas, including those specifically listed in the resolution. It noted that “starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited by international humanitarian law.” It demanded the cessation of all violence against civilians, including the use of aerial bombardment such as barrel bombs that the Syrian regime has been using indiscriminately to target civilian populations. It demanded “that all parties demilitarize medical facilities, schools and other civilian facilities,” and called for “free passage to all areas for medical personnel, equipment, transport and supplies.”
While holding both sides accountable for violations of international humanitarian and human rights law and demanding an end to impunity for anyone found to have committed such violations, all in all Resolution 2139 was tougher on the Syrian regime than prior resolutions that Russia and China had vetoed. This begs the question of what brought Russia in particular on board this time around.
First, the timing of submission of the resolution to a vote was no coincidence. Its backers wanted Russia to have to face a decision on whether or not to veto a humanitarian resolution while the Sochi Winter Olympics Games were still going on.
Second, there are no references to sanctions, let alone the potential use of military force, that would provide enforcement teeth to the resolution. It simply requested Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to report on implementation of the resolution every 30 days and expressed the Security Council’s “intent to take further steps in the case of non-compliance with this resolution.” There would need to be a further resolution passed by the Security Council if specific enforcement actions were to be taken, which means that Russia and China could veto such a resolution when the time comes.
Third, the only terrorist group referenced in the text of Resolution 2139 is al Qaeda and its affiliates. During the negotiation process, references to the Syrian regime’s terrorist partners Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds Force were removed from the draft text.
Fourth, there was no mention of referral of Syrian regime leaders to the International Criminal Court for possible prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity, as some members of the Security Council had wanted.
Fifth, the current U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, appears to be more flexible in the exact wording used in the resolution than was her predecessor Susan Rice. Ambassador Power appears to see more value than Rice in supporting a relatively toothless humanitarian resolution for its symbolic value as opposed to holding out for a more robust set of enforcement tools all at once. “At long last the Security Council has spoken clearly and unanimously about the devastating humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Syria,” Ambassador Power said in her prepared remarks to the Council in explanation of the U.S. vote. “It is because the United States believes that civilians should not be starved, should not be bombed, and should not be denied access to the most basic things required to sustain life that we welcome today’s action by the Security Council.”
One omission from Resolution 2139 that may have served the interests of several members of the Security Council, irrespective of which party to the Syrian conflict they support, involves the transfer of arms. Proposed amendments to the draft that would have called for ending the transfer of arms to either side was rejected, even though it is precisely such arms that have contributed to the humanitarian crisis in the first place. Ambassador Power, in response to my question about the U.S. position on the proposed amendments, said that the United States had no objection.
The UN Security Council has at least taken a modest step in the right direction. It has called for concrete actions to help alleviate the appalling plight of Syrian civilians caught in the cross-fire of a war that has claimed over 130,000 lives, displaced millions of people, and trapped hundreds of thousands in besieged areas with little to eat and no medical facilities. However, what will really count is whether there will be dramatic relief on the ground from the suffering that innocent civilians have endured for far too long and what the Security Council will do if it faces continued non-compliance with its demands.
